In 2004, I took an economics class in community college. I got an A in it. It was easy to memorize the definitions, and that's pretty much all it was. But the book for the class talked about GDP (gross domestic product) at one point, and it said that there can never be a full account of the GDP because you can't count when a mechanic fixes his own car, etc. So, that would mean that the GDP is really everything anyone does in the country. Me typing this right now is adding to the GDP. It won't get counted, because I'm not paying anyone, I'm not paying myself, to do it for me. But it is part of the GDP. If fixing your own car counts, then typing something up yourself, when you could have hired someone to do it for you, counts.
Right now I'm taking a class called "intro to political science". The book for it, called Power & Choice, talks about the GDP's of different countries, specifically the per-person PPPGDP, where PPP means "purchasing power parity", which means that if they say the per-person GDP of a country is $40000, that means that the average person in that country can buy all the same stuff that a USAer could buy in USA if they had $40000. And then the book claims that the ppPPPGDP of some country (I forget which) is $800. No. That's not possible. You said, book, YOU SAID that it would be as if I, a USAer, had to live on $800 for a whole year. There's no way I can do that. I can't even buy food for less than $1200 a year. Even $1200 is just theoretical. But I've looked into what you would need to eat to not die of malnutrition, I've looked for the cheapest prices at different stores, and there's no way in hell you can eat for less $1200 a year, where I live. And then on top of that there's clothes, and a place to live, and medical care. You might say, oh, well, they're all just starving and sick. But no, they would be dead. Which would make the ppPPPGDP go up. And $800 is the average, and I'll eat my hat if there aren't some relatively rich people in that country, which means there are also some people who are making way below $800 a year, so they, according to the book's reasoning, should be dead. But they're not, and we know they're not because of how low the ppPPPGDP is in that country.
So why aren't they? I asked a friend about it and they came up with a possible explanation. It could be that all the poor people in that country, and other countries with "low GDP's", live in huts with 40 other people, and they repair the huts themselves with stuff they find outside, and they have a goat or something, and they have a garden or they gather food from the woods or whatever, and none of this gets counted in the GDP.
GDP only counts when money gets traded. And it even counts when money is traded but there's nothing new being produced. Like, the same shirt being sold at walmart and then later at goodwill or something. I don't know. Money changing hands doesn't mean that anything is being produced, though. And things being produced doesn't mean that money is changing hands.
Conclusion: GDP tells us nothing important.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Human meat.
I've been eating way less meat than I used to. I used to eat like 4 chicken sandwiches in one day. With bacon. So, it's good that I'm not doing that anymore, right. But sometimes I eat meat still because it's delicious and everyone around me is eating meat all the time. But at least I'm eating less of it....
Then I thought, what if there's a person who is a serial killer and then they decide that instead of killing once a month, they'll just kill once a year. But they can't give it up completely because killing gives them some serious pleasure, or alleviates some serious pain they have. Would I think, "Oh how good that you only kill once a year."? No, I wouldn't. I would say they should do anything they have to to avoid killing. Like, take pills for whatever mental problem you have or whatever, go to counseling, commit yourself to an institution.
Then I thought, what if a person lived in a society were it was normal to eat human meat? And then they started thinking that maybe it was wrong. But their family kept eating human meat, and all their favorite foods had human meat in it. They would make their own version of the food without meat, but it wasn't the same. And everyone else was eating the human meat, and enjoying it, and they wanted that feeling, and they wanted to be included, and that human was already dead anyway, so what does it hurt.
That was the emotional convincing I needed. It doesn't matter how yummy hamburgers are (and they are seriously yummy); it's damned evil to eat one. (One that was brutally killed anyway. If an animal died of natural causes, then maybe it would be ok to eat it. Whatever.) At least I can remember what they tasted like.
I feel a little disturbed by the fact that I'm holding onto the memory of eating a hamburger. I would definitely not want to be friends with someone who cherished the memory of imprisoning and then murdering a human, or of eating human meat that was ill-gotten. But that's what I have to do for now. And I think it's pretty good progress.
I thought of this on saturday, I think. I went to a restaurant on sunday for foothor's doo, and I accidentally ate meat because even though I said I didn't want any meat on my food, the waiter apparently didn't understand. I haven't eat any meat since then, a whole awesome 3 days. I have been eating milk and eggs but seriously I don't intend for that to be long-term. I'm working on it.
Then I thought, what if there's a person who is a serial killer and then they decide that instead of killing once a month, they'll just kill once a year. But they can't give it up completely because killing gives them some serious pleasure, or alleviates some serious pain they have. Would I think, "Oh how good that you only kill once a year."? No, I wouldn't. I would say they should do anything they have to to avoid killing. Like, take pills for whatever mental problem you have or whatever, go to counseling, commit yourself to an institution.
Then I thought, what if a person lived in a society were it was normal to eat human meat? And then they started thinking that maybe it was wrong. But their family kept eating human meat, and all their favorite foods had human meat in it. They would make their own version of the food without meat, but it wasn't the same. And everyone else was eating the human meat, and enjoying it, and they wanted that feeling, and they wanted to be included, and that human was already dead anyway, so what does it hurt.
That was the emotional convincing I needed. It doesn't matter how yummy hamburgers are (and they are seriously yummy); it's damned evil to eat one. (One that was brutally killed anyway. If an animal died of natural causes, then maybe it would be ok to eat it. Whatever.) At least I can remember what they tasted like.
I feel a little disturbed by the fact that I'm holding onto the memory of eating a hamburger. I would definitely not want to be friends with someone who cherished the memory of imprisoning and then murdering a human, or of eating human meat that was ill-gotten. But that's what I have to do for now. And I think it's pretty good progress.
I thought of this on saturday, I think. I went to a restaurant on sunday for foothor's doo, and I accidentally ate meat because even though I said I didn't want any meat on my food, the waiter apparently didn't understand. I haven't eat any meat since then, a whole awesome 3 days. I have been eating milk and eggs but seriously I don't intend for that to be long-term. I'm working on it.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Baby
Lovejoyfeminism has an entry that I can't find where the author says she doesn't know how to explain her pregnancy to her kid because she can't say it's a baby in her tummy, because it's not a baby yet, but she can't say it's a fetus because her kid doesn't know what a fetus is.
I could tell her kid what a fetus is. It's a baby that's still in the womb. My biology book has some illustrations of babies at various ages in the womb that could show her exactly what a "baby in the womb" is.
It is totally accurate to call a fetus a baby. Why? Because that is one of the common uses of the word "baby". Baby is not a technical term, so it doesn't have a precise definition. It tends to refer to things that are young or to things that people love. People sometimes call their friends and spouses baby, to express love. A fetus is definitely something young, and for many people it's also something they love. I'm not saying it's wrong to call it a fetus. That term is correct. But baby is also correct.
The pro-choice crazies often say, "It's not a baby, it's a fetus." But then after it's born, you could just as correctly (incorrectly) say, "It's not a baby, it's a neonate." The technical terms are embryo, fetus, neonate, and infant. And the word baby can refer to all of those, and more. But using the same word for all of them doesn't mean we're equating an embryo with an infant. Like, the japanese word for leg is the same as the word for foot. They're both "ashi". That doesn't mean that japanese people think that a foot is exactly the same thing as a leg. It just means they have something relevant in common. And an embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, and all the other things that the word baby can refer to, do have something relevant in common: They're all young and/or loved. So when someone refers to a fetus or embryo as a baby, they're telling you what they find relevant -- that it's their child and they love it and they care for it, and they'll keep feeling that way after it comes out of the womb.
I've pointed this out to the crazies many times. I tell them that it is correct to call a fetus a baby, because that is a common usage of the word baby. And that's how language works. And baby isn't a technical term. They never accept this, or even respond directly. But I think I've figured out what they're thinking.
They think that if a fetus is called a baby, then that makes it a person, and that would make it immoral to get an abortion.
There are two problems with this. 1, fallacy of equivocation; 2, bodily integrity.
The fallacy of equivocation is when you have the same word in two different contexts and then you claim that the word has to mean the same exact thing on both contexts. For example
A chess player is a person; therefore a bad chessplayer is a bad person.
Chess player is not a synonym for a person. Also, the word bad has two different meanings here. First it's modifying chessplaying ability, then it's modifying a person's character.
The pro-choice crazies's argument about the word baby uses a fallacy of equivocation. Calling something a baby does not necessarily make it a person. People sometimes refer to projects or objects such as cars as their babies. And I'm totally willing to agree that there's a period of time at the beginning of a human's gestation during which they are not a person, because they don't even have a brain or any thoughts or feelings. But they're still human, and they're still young, and people can still feel love for them. So they fall with in one or more of the definitions or connotations of the word baby, but not of person. Language is complicated like that.
But even if a fetus is a person, that still doesn't make abortion immoral. Here's the article that convinced me: Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Read it. Basically it says that you still are not obligated to share your body with someone, even if they are a person.
So, it's not incorrect to call a fetus or embryo a baby, because it falls under one or more of the meanings of that word. And it's not a danger to the pro-choice stance, because something being a baby doesn't mean it's a person, and something being a person doesn't mean you have to sacrifice anything of yourself to it.
I could tell her kid what a fetus is. It's a baby that's still in the womb. My biology book has some illustrations of babies at various ages in the womb that could show her exactly what a "baby in the womb" is.
It is totally accurate to call a fetus a baby. Why? Because that is one of the common uses of the word "baby". Baby is not a technical term, so it doesn't have a precise definition. It tends to refer to things that are young or to things that people love. People sometimes call their friends and spouses baby, to express love. A fetus is definitely something young, and for many people it's also something they love. I'm not saying it's wrong to call it a fetus. That term is correct. But baby is also correct.
The pro-choice crazies often say, "It's not a baby, it's a fetus." But then after it's born, you could just as correctly (incorrectly) say, "It's not a baby, it's a neonate." The technical terms are embryo, fetus, neonate, and infant. And the word baby can refer to all of those, and more. But using the same word for all of them doesn't mean we're equating an embryo with an infant. Like, the japanese word for leg is the same as the word for foot. They're both "ashi". That doesn't mean that japanese people think that a foot is exactly the same thing as a leg. It just means they have something relevant in common. And an embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, and all the other things that the word baby can refer to, do have something relevant in common: They're all young and/or loved. So when someone refers to a fetus or embryo as a baby, they're telling you what they find relevant -- that it's their child and they love it and they care for it, and they'll keep feeling that way after it comes out of the womb.
I've pointed this out to the crazies many times. I tell them that it is correct to call a fetus a baby, because that is a common usage of the word baby. And that's how language works. And baby isn't a technical term. They never accept this, or even respond directly. But I think I've figured out what they're thinking.
They think that if a fetus is called a baby, then that makes it a person, and that would make it immoral to get an abortion.
There are two problems with this. 1, fallacy of equivocation; 2, bodily integrity.
The fallacy of equivocation is when you have the same word in two different contexts and then you claim that the word has to mean the same exact thing on both contexts. For example
A chess player is a person; therefore a bad chessplayer is a bad person.
Chess player is not a synonym for a person. Also, the word bad has two different meanings here. First it's modifying chessplaying ability, then it's modifying a person's character.
The pro-choice crazies's argument about the word baby uses a fallacy of equivocation. Calling something a baby does not necessarily make it a person. People sometimes refer to projects or objects such as cars as their babies. And I'm totally willing to agree that there's a period of time at the beginning of a human's gestation during which they are not a person, because they don't even have a brain or any thoughts or feelings. But they're still human, and they're still young, and people can still feel love for them. So they fall with in one or more of the definitions or connotations of the word baby, but not of person. Language is complicated like that.
But even if a fetus is a person, that still doesn't make abortion immoral. Here's the article that convinced me: Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Read it. Basically it says that you still are not obligated to share your body with someone, even if they are a person.
So, it's not incorrect to call a fetus or embryo a baby, because it falls under one or more of the meanings of that word. And it's not a danger to the pro-choice stance, because something being a baby doesn't mean it's a person, and something being a person doesn't mean you have to sacrifice anything of yourself to it.
Charmed
I used to watch Charmed every day. I got bored with it. Amazingly there are still some episodes I haven't seen.
Anyway, what's the deal with this show?
There are demons, who are "evil" but supposedly don't have free will, so then it's not really their fault that they do bad things, right? Really, they are totally innocent pawns. Yet there's an episode where Piper tortures a demon. The demons supposedly don't have souls, yet they often express a desire to keep living. A demon falls in love, a demon sacrifices his life to save his half-brother (who is half demon and half human), a demon asks to be turned human because she wants to experience "good" and "feelings". The demons supposedly get their power and take their orders from a thing called "the source of all evil". The source can be killed, but then a different demon becomes the new source. None of this makes any sense!!
There are these people called elders. They're like angels or something. But they're not like the opposite of demons. They don't fight the demons. Instead, they turn dead people into these things called whitelighters, and then send the whitelighters to liase with certain humans who are witches, to give the witches vague instructions about how to fight the demons. Demons are evil, elders are good, and they are battling over humans. Why can't the elders just go and destroy the demons themselves? I don't know.
Humans are not considered to be good or evil. They're called innocents. They can be swayed by good or evil. If a human kills another human, that's not evil, and the witches are not allowed to use their powers to kill the murderer. If a witch uses their powers to "punish the guilty" rather than "protect the innocent", then the witch turns evil. But if a demon kills a human, the witches can totally kill the demon. Even though demons have no free will and are just pawns of "the source" or whatever. Also, a demon doesn't even have to have done anything wrong to merit being killed. It just has to exist, and then if a witch sees them, they get dead.
They also make references to a "god". A god that is greater than the elders. Whatever. This show makes no sense.
Anyway, what's the deal with this show?
There are demons, who are "evil" but supposedly don't have free will, so then it's not really their fault that they do bad things, right? Really, they are totally innocent pawns. Yet there's an episode where Piper tortures a demon. The demons supposedly don't have souls, yet they often express a desire to keep living. A demon falls in love, a demon sacrifices his life to save his half-brother (who is half demon and half human), a demon asks to be turned human because she wants to experience "good" and "feelings". The demons supposedly get their power and take their orders from a thing called "the source of all evil". The source can be killed, but then a different demon becomes the new source. None of this makes any sense!!
There are these people called elders. They're like angels or something. But they're not like the opposite of demons. They don't fight the demons. Instead, they turn dead people into these things called whitelighters, and then send the whitelighters to liase with certain humans who are witches, to give the witches vague instructions about how to fight the demons. Demons are evil, elders are good, and they are battling over humans. Why can't the elders just go and destroy the demons themselves? I don't know.
Humans are not considered to be good or evil. They're called innocents. They can be swayed by good or evil. If a human kills another human, that's not evil, and the witches are not allowed to use their powers to kill the murderer. If a witch uses their powers to "punish the guilty" rather than "protect the innocent", then the witch turns evil. But if a demon kills a human, the witches can totally kill the demon. Even though demons have no free will and are just pawns of "the source" or whatever. Also, a demon doesn't even have to have done anything wrong to merit being killed. It just has to exist, and then if a witch sees them, they get dead.
They also make references to a "god". A god that is greater than the elders. Whatever. This show makes no sense.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Gilmore Girls #9 Rory's Dance
I wanted to start with episode 1, but it somehow got deleted off my tv, and so I decided to just go ahead and do #9, since that's the one I was watching now. The point is to complain about all the things that annoy me in this series. I've seen the series straight through like 10 times. There's a lot to complain about.
-
Lorelai is picking the avacado off her food, which apparently is supremely offensive to Emily.
Emily accuses Lorelai of not reading the chilton news letter. Instead of disregarding the comment or saying "who gives a fuck", Lorelai lies and says that she did read it. Emily tests her by asking her what the picture on the cover was. As if one would necessarily remember the picture on the cover. Her not remembering it doesn't prove that she didn't read any of the newsletter, and her yes remembering it just proves that she saw the picture. --> Emily is stupid, and also a bitch.
Lorelai is mad that Emily made a donation in Rory's name. Why does she care?
Rory says she doesn't want to go to the dance, and Emily asks Lorelai, "What did you say to her?" But, stupid Emily, Lorelai didn't even know about the dance until just a moment ago, and you've all been sitting here together, so you know everything she might have said about the dance. Also, why does Emily give a shit if Rory goes to a dance or not.
Rory doesn't have any friends at Chilton, yet Lorelai encourages her to go to the dance. If she had even one friend to go with, it could make sense, but it doesn't make sense to go to a party full of people who either hate you or feel completely neutral about you.
Rory is afraid to ask Dean to the dance and doesn't think he is her boyfriend, even though in a previous episode she brought him cookies and they vacuumed each other's faces.
Emily calls and criticizes Loreilai for having lots of clutter in her house. Then she says how even though Rory may think the dance is frivolous now, later in life she will regret missing it. Isn't that, like, bass-ackwards? Don't people usually think that stuff is life-changing when they're 16, and then later they realize it didn't matter? Anyway, I went I guess like 3 gay-ass dances in middle school, and then I decided they weren't ever going to get any better, and I didn't go to any prom, and I don't regret it.
Lorelai tells Emily that she is making Rory a dress for the dance. Emily thinks that's, like, the most barbaric thing she's ever heard of, and snottily asks if Lorelai is making the dress out of curtains.
Emily complains about how she is going to be missing out on the once-in-a-lifetime event of seeing Rory off to the dance. Really? She's never going to go to another dance? My schools had them all the freaking time. Also, Emily, didn't you have a daughter of your own? Lorelai got pregnant when she was 16, so, boo-hoo, you didn't get to watch her do the coming out party, or see her off to prom, but she probably went to dances before that, right? Rory isn't your daughter, so really, why don't you back the fuck off.
Lorelai invites Emily over, and now I realize that that is what Emily wanted all along and had been bitchily hinting at.
Tristan comes to bug Rory while she's in line to buy tickets to the dance. He says she must be going alone because if she had a date, then he would be buying the tickets. As if going to a dance alone is immoral or shameful or something. Then Rory tells him she does have a date. Why is she talking to him!? Why doesn't she just turn and stare straight ahead and ignore him and keep reading her book? Tristan says the guy must be cheap. Fucking gey. What is the stupid reasoning that leads to the idea that men should pay for everything? Rory and Dean are both fucking teenagers. There's no reason to assume that he'd have more money than her.
Tristan says that he wanted to go to the dance with Rory and she tells him haha no. So he poutily says he'll take someone named Sissy. Rory says, "I'll send her a condolence card," to which Tristan replies, "At least she won't be buying her own ticket." Wat. I don't get it. Why is that bad? I'm confused. Is it supposed to be shameful for a woman to spend money? I guess the assumption is that what all women want is a man who works his ass off to get bucketloads of money just so he can buy frivolous shit for her. And Tristan is saying that Rory is missing out on this highest of goals that a woman can hope to achieve. Whatever.
Paris is mad at Rory for being mean to Tristan. She disregards the past instances in which Tristan has been mean to Rory. But I guess, since Paris is mean to Rory in the exact same way, she thinks that it's just right for Rory to be treated that way, and Rory is the one being unreasonable by expecting to be treated well. I guess that's what Rory gets for being new to the school.
Paris worships Tristan and thinks no guy could be better. Then she says that Rory probably doesn't even have a date and will make a stupid excuse at the last minute to miss the dance.
The doorbell rings, and Lorelai calls "We're in here!" Emily comes in and criticizes her for this.
Emily wants to take a picture of "the big entrance". She gets her camera ready and then calls for Rory to come in. She comes in wearing a bib-napkin and eating a taco. Emily can't believe that a person would ever dare to eat food, and says to Lorelai, "She has been living with you too long." WTF. She's been living with her her whole life, retard.
Lorelai hurt her back earlier. Sookie mentions something about it, and Emily demands to know what's going on. Lorelai gives in and tells her. Why? She should have just told her "Shut up and mind your own fucking business, or get out of my house."
The dress Lorelai made is so good that Emily thinks it's store-bought. Ha.
Dean honks outside, and Rory goes to meet him. Emily implies that this makes Rory some kind of trash. Rory explains that that's what she and Dean agreed on, but Emily doesn't care and insists that Rory wait for Dean to come to the door. If I were in Rory's place, I'd have said Bye and walked out the door the second I realized what Emily's objection was. But Rory stays there and does what Emily wants. Why?
Lorelai points out that she's already met Dean, so this really isn't necessary. Emily says that she hasn't met him yet. Again, Emily, didn't you have your own fucking daughter? Back the fuck off.
Dean honks several more times, and Emily calls him stupid.
Hey, why can't Rory at least open the door and wave to Dean to come in? Why doesn't that fall within your stupid "manners"?
Dean finally comes and rings the doorbell. Rory runs to the door. Emily says, "Don't rush. A lady never rushes." Well I'm not a lady, you fucking crazy bitch, so shut the fuck up! is what Rory should have said. Rory rushes anyway. Small victory #1.
Emily calls Dean "young man" and acts as if he's a criminal.
Emily, glaring at Dean as if he were a Nazi, tells Dean her name. Dean says hi. Emily is offended by this, but restrains herself and just says "hello".
Lorelai tells them to have fun, and Emily tells them to be home by 11:00. Hey, stupid, are you forgetting which kid is yours again?
Lorelai whispers to Rory that she can stay out till 12:00. Lorelai, Emily will never learn if you don't correct her mistakes.
Emily insists on staying to take care of Lorelai because of her injured back. Lorelai tries to convince her to leave, but ends up giving in. Gah, why!? Emily tries to spin it as caring for her daughter, but it's really just a chance for her to be in control of something.
Lorelai stands up off the couch to try to convince Emily that she's ok. Emily demands that she move, as in walk around. What a bitch. Lorelai doesn't want you there, so fucking leave!
Emily decided to make tea. Why? I don't know. Maybe tea is supposed to help "back spasms". Then she says, "Please tell me you have something besides Lipton." I'm here to help you, and I'm going to do you the favor of making you tea, but if all you have a brand of tea that I consider trashy, then I'm going to rage at you, and if you fight back at all, I'll tell you that you have no manners. But Lorelai just ignores that comment.
Emily pretends not to notice when other people are exasperated by her.
Emily is looking for some candles ("bacara candlesticks" or something, I can't tell what she's saying) that she gave Lorelai as a present. Lorelai guiltily tells her she exchanged them for a monkey lamp. Emily criticizes Lorelai for the "bad breeding of returning a gift". Bad breeding? Gee, I wonder whose fault that could be. She also criticizes Lorelai for having bad taste and trading in something of substance (candles) for a "ridiculous sinister barroom decoration" (the lamp). Candles are something of substance? Technically, yes, but not in the way you mean.
Paris, who claims to hate Rory, comes up to talk to her for some reason.
Tristan is super sad, and makes out with Sissy.
Lorelai being nice to Emily. She hopes that if she does this enough, it will rub off on Emily and she'll stop being a bitch. It never works.
Paris's date comes up to ask for Rory's phone number. Rory points out that maybe he shouldn't be hitting on other girls when he's here with Paris, and he says that Paris is his cousin. Remember how Paris was saying that Rory wouldn't be able to get a date? Ha.
Lorelai tells Emily that she made Rory's dress. Emily kind of looks like she wants to throw up, but she reins herself in.
Paris screams about something.
Tristan confronts Dean. Stupidity ensues. Dean tries to walk around Tristan, but Tristan keep blocking his path. He does it again to Rory. Dean pushes him, and Tristan acts like Dean is the one who started it. It ends with Dean threatening Tristan. Rory and Dean leave.
Paris asks Tristan if he's ok, again ignoring any wrong Tristan might have done.
Rory and Dean stop at Miss Patty's after leaving the dance. They sit on a bean bag chair and read a book. They fall asleep. Miss Patty comes in with her yoga class at 5:30 in the morning. They gently and nicely wake up Rory, but when Dean asks what time it is, they all glare at him as if he's done something wrong.
Rory is horrified at the "mistake" and tells Dean that he shouldn't be anywhere near her house right now. Really? Lorelai hasn't even been the strict parent. Will she really be mad at Dean because of this? Will she, like Miss Patty et al, assume that Dean has "nefarious" intentions? That wouldn't seem to fit in with Lorelai's character. It seems that she would just ask Rory what happened and then realize it wasn't a big deal. Or even a deal at all.
Emily wakes up Lorelai at 5:30 and tells her that Rory isn't here. She insists that Lorelai call the police. Before she can find the phone, it rings and it's Miss Patty calling. Lorelai tells Emily that Rory and Dean were at Miss Patty's. Emily says, "What is that, a motel?"
Emily asks in "what state" Miss Patty found them. Like, with all their clothes off, mid-coitus?
Lorelai says she doesn't know, and they should just wait and talk to Rory to find out what happened. Emily says, "We know what happened!" As if it's a bad thing. All as if it's bad for people to have sex. IT'S NOT.
Lorelai repeats that they can't assume anything. Emily says that she's watched Lorelai do a lot of stupid things in her life, and she's held her tongue. Ha!
Emily says she won't stand by while Lorelai lets Rory ruin her life (by getting pregnant).
Emily goes on a tirade. She asks Lorelai, "What kind of mother are you, to allow this to happen to her?" Lorelai responds, "What kind of mother were you?"
Emily says, if she was so controlling, why couldn't she stop Lorelai from getting pregnant? Right, that's a good defense. "I wasn't 100% tyrannical! Only 98%!"
Lorelai tells Emily to get out. This has been one of the few times that she stands up to Emily in the slightest. She tells Emily that she did not throw her life away by getting pregnant. She defends Rory. Emily leaves.
Rory comes in and tries to think Lorelai for defending her. But now Lorelai is all mad at Rory for staying out all night and says that she has to go on the pill.
Rory says that Lorelai knows that nothing happened and that it was just an accident, but she mad that Rory screwed up in front of Emily. Why would it be bad if something had happened? Why is staying out all night a screw up?
Episode is over.
-
Lorelai is picking the avacado off her food, which apparently is supremely offensive to Emily.
Emily accuses Lorelai of not reading the chilton news letter. Instead of disregarding the comment or saying "who gives a fuck", Lorelai lies and says that she did read it. Emily tests her by asking her what the picture on the cover was. As if one would necessarily remember the picture on the cover. Her not remembering it doesn't prove that she didn't read any of the newsletter, and her yes remembering it just proves that she saw the picture. --> Emily is stupid, and also a bitch.
Lorelai is mad that Emily made a donation in Rory's name. Why does she care?
Rory says she doesn't want to go to the dance, and Emily asks Lorelai, "What did you say to her?" But, stupid Emily, Lorelai didn't even know about the dance until just a moment ago, and you've all been sitting here together, so you know everything she might have said about the dance. Also, why does Emily give a shit if Rory goes to a dance or not.
Rory doesn't have any friends at Chilton, yet Lorelai encourages her to go to the dance. If she had even one friend to go with, it could make sense, but it doesn't make sense to go to a party full of people who either hate you or feel completely neutral about you.
Rory is afraid to ask Dean to the dance and doesn't think he is her boyfriend, even though in a previous episode she brought him cookies and they vacuumed each other's faces.
Emily calls and criticizes Loreilai for having lots of clutter in her house. Then she says how even though Rory may think the dance is frivolous now, later in life she will regret missing it. Isn't that, like, bass-ackwards? Don't people usually think that stuff is life-changing when they're 16, and then later they realize it didn't matter? Anyway, I went I guess like 3 gay-ass dances in middle school, and then I decided they weren't ever going to get any better, and I didn't go to any prom, and I don't regret it.
Lorelai tells Emily that she is making Rory a dress for the dance. Emily thinks that's, like, the most barbaric thing she's ever heard of, and snottily asks if Lorelai is making the dress out of curtains.
Emily complains about how she is going to be missing out on the once-in-a-lifetime event of seeing Rory off to the dance. Really? She's never going to go to another dance? My schools had them all the freaking time. Also, Emily, didn't you have a daughter of your own? Lorelai got pregnant when she was 16, so, boo-hoo, you didn't get to watch her do the coming out party, or see her off to prom, but she probably went to dances before that, right? Rory isn't your daughter, so really, why don't you back the fuck off.
Lorelai invites Emily over, and now I realize that that is what Emily wanted all along and had been bitchily hinting at.
Tristan comes to bug Rory while she's in line to buy tickets to the dance. He says she must be going alone because if she had a date, then he would be buying the tickets. As if going to a dance alone is immoral or shameful or something. Then Rory tells him she does have a date. Why is she talking to him!? Why doesn't she just turn and stare straight ahead and ignore him and keep reading her book? Tristan says the guy must be cheap. Fucking gey. What is the stupid reasoning that leads to the idea that men should pay for everything? Rory and Dean are both fucking teenagers. There's no reason to assume that he'd have more money than her.
Tristan says that he wanted to go to the dance with Rory and she tells him haha no. So he poutily says he'll take someone named Sissy. Rory says, "I'll send her a condolence card," to which Tristan replies, "At least she won't be buying her own ticket." Wat. I don't get it. Why is that bad? I'm confused. Is it supposed to be shameful for a woman to spend money? I guess the assumption is that what all women want is a man who works his ass off to get bucketloads of money just so he can buy frivolous shit for her. And Tristan is saying that Rory is missing out on this highest of goals that a woman can hope to achieve. Whatever.
Paris is mad at Rory for being mean to Tristan. She disregards the past instances in which Tristan has been mean to Rory. But I guess, since Paris is mean to Rory in the exact same way, she thinks that it's just right for Rory to be treated that way, and Rory is the one being unreasonable by expecting to be treated well. I guess that's what Rory gets for being new to the school.
Paris worships Tristan and thinks no guy could be better. Then she says that Rory probably doesn't even have a date and will make a stupid excuse at the last minute to miss the dance.
The doorbell rings, and Lorelai calls "We're in here!" Emily comes in and criticizes her for this.
Emily wants to take a picture of "the big entrance". She gets her camera ready and then calls for Rory to come in. She comes in wearing a bib-napkin and eating a taco. Emily can't believe that a person would ever dare to eat food, and says to Lorelai, "She has been living with you too long." WTF. She's been living with her her whole life, retard.
Lorelai hurt her back earlier. Sookie mentions something about it, and Emily demands to know what's going on. Lorelai gives in and tells her. Why? She should have just told her "Shut up and mind your own fucking business, or get out of my house."
The dress Lorelai made is so good that Emily thinks it's store-bought. Ha.
Dean honks outside, and Rory goes to meet him. Emily implies that this makes Rory some kind of trash. Rory explains that that's what she and Dean agreed on, but Emily doesn't care and insists that Rory wait for Dean to come to the door. If I were in Rory's place, I'd have said Bye and walked out the door the second I realized what Emily's objection was. But Rory stays there and does what Emily wants. Why?
Lorelai points out that she's already met Dean, so this really isn't necessary. Emily says that she hasn't met him yet. Again, Emily, didn't you have your own fucking daughter? Back the fuck off.
Dean honks several more times, and Emily calls him stupid.
Hey, why can't Rory at least open the door and wave to Dean to come in? Why doesn't that fall within your stupid "manners"?
Dean finally comes and rings the doorbell. Rory runs to the door. Emily says, "Don't rush. A lady never rushes." Well I'm not a lady, you fucking crazy bitch, so shut the fuck up! is what Rory should have said. Rory rushes anyway. Small victory #1.
Emily calls Dean "young man" and acts as if he's a criminal.
Emily, glaring at Dean as if he were a Nazi, tells Dean her name. Dean says hi. Emily is offended by this, but restrains herself and just says "hello".
Lorelai tells them to have fun, and Emily tells them to be home by 11:00. Hey, stupid, are you forgetting which kid is yours again?
Lorelai whispers to Rory that she can stay out till 12:00. Lorelai, Emily will never learn if you don't correct her mistakes.
Emily insists on staying to take care of Lorelai because of her injured back. Lorelai tries to convince her to leave, but ends up giving in. Gah, why!? Emily tries to spin it as caring for her daughter, but it's really just a chance for her to be in control of something.
Lorelai stands up off the couch to try to convince Emily that she's ok. Emily demands that she move, as in walk around. What a bitch. Lorelai doesn't want you there, so fucking leave!
Emily decided to make tea. Why? I don't know. Maybe tea is supposed to help "back spasms". Then she says, "Please tell me you have something besides Lipton." I'm here to help you, and I'm going to do you the favor of making you tea, but if all you have a brand of tea that I consider trashy, then I'm going to rage at you, and if you fight back at all, I'll tell you that you have no manners. But Lorelai just ignores that comment.
Emily pretends not to notice when other people are exasperated by her.
Emily is looking for some candles ("bacara candlesticks" or something, I can't tell what she's saying) that she gave Lorelai as a present. Lorelai guiltily tells her she exchanged them for a monkey lamp. Emily criticizes Lorelai for the "bad breeding of returning a gift". Bad breeding? Gee, I wonder whose fault that could be. She also criticizes Lorelai for having bad taste and trading in something of substance (candles) for a "ridiculous sinister barroom decoration" (the lamp). Candles are something of substance? Technically, yes, but not in the way you mean.
Paris, who claims to hate Rory, comes up to talk to her for some reason.
Tristan is super sad, and makes out with Sissy.
Lorelai being nice to Emily. She hopes that if she does this enough, it will rub off on Emily and she'll stop being a bitch. It never works.
Paris's date comes up to ask for Rory's phone number. Rory points out that maybe he shouldn't be hitting on other girls when he's here with Paris, and he says that Paris is his cousin. Remember how Paris was saying that Rory wouldn't be able to get a date? Ha.
Lorelai tells Emily that she made Rory's dress. Emily kind of looks like she wants to throw up, but she reins herself in.
Paris screams about something.
Tristan confronts Dean. Stupidity ensues. Dean tries to walk around Tristan, but Tristan keep blocking his path. He does it again to Rory. Dean pushes him, and Tristan acts like Dean is the one who started it. It ends with Dean threatening Tristan. Rory and Dean leave.
Paris asks Tristan if he's ok, again ignoring any wrong Tristan might have done.
Rory and Dean stop at Miss Patty's after leaving the dance. They sit on a bean bag chair and read a book. They fall asleep. Miss Patty comes in with her yoga class at 5:30 in the morning. They gently and nicely wake up Rory, but when Dean asks what time it is, they all glare at him as if he's done something wrong.
Rory is horrified at the "mistake" and tells Dean that he shouldn't be anywhere near her house right now. Really? Lorelai hasn't even been the strict parent. Will she really be mad at Dean because of this? Will she, like Miss Patty et al, assume that Dean has "nefarious" intentions? That wouldn't seem to fit in with Lorelai's character. It seems that she would just ask Rory what happened and then realize it wasn't a big deal. Or even a deal at all.
Emily wakes up Lorelai at 5:30 and tells her that Rory isn't here. She insists that Lorelai call the police. Before she can find the phone, it rings and it's Miss Patty calling. Lorelai tells Emily that Rory and Dean were at Miss Patty's. Emily says, "What is that, a motel?"
Emily asks in "what state" Miss Patty found them. Like, with all their clothes off, mid-coitus?
Lorelai says she doesn't know, and they should just wait and talk to Rory to find out what happened. Emily says, "We know what happened!" As if it's a bad thing. All as if it's bad for people to have sex. IT'S NOT.
Lorelai repeats that they can't assume anything. Emily says that she's watched Lorelai do a lot of stupid things in her life, and she's held her tongue. Ha!
Emily says she won't stand by while Lorelai lets Rory ruin her life (by getting pregnant).
Emily goes on a tirade. She asks Lorelai, "What kind of mother are you, to allow this to happen to her?" Lorelai responds, "What kind of mother were you?"
Emily says, if she was so controlling, why couldn't she stop Lorelai from getting pregnant? Right, that's a good defense. "I wasn't 100% tyrannical! Only 98%!"
Lorelai tells Emily to get out. This has been one of the few times that she stands up to Emily in the slightest. She tells Emily that she did not throw her life away by getting pregnant. She defends Rory. Emily leaves.
Rory comes in and tries to think Lorelai for defending her. But now Lorelai is all mad at Rory for staying out all night and says that she has to go on the pill.
Rory says that Lorelai knows that nothing happened and that it was just an accident, but she mad that Rory screwed up in front of Emily. Why would it be bad if something had happened? Why is staying out all night a screw up?
Episode is over.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
School
School as a concept:
The concept of school is that a few people (it doesn't matter who) decide what ALL the children should learn. I don't like this because there's no such thing as a basic curriculum that every person needs to know. Every individual's life is different.
School in practice:
And then they force the children to attend the meetings ("classes") and try to force the children to learn everything on the list. I don't like this because it violates the children's ownership of their own bodies and minds.
And then they find that they are failing at getting the children to learn things, so they start trying to eliminiate "distractions", and that's how you get to these day-prisons where you are punished if you move about without permission, talk without permission, look away from the assigment without permission; where you're only allowed to pee and poo and eat on a schedule, someone else's schedule; where your physical fitness deteriorates from being kept like veal for the better part of 7 hours a day, 180 days a year; and your creativity deteriorates from being required to fill out worksheets according to specific, pointless, mundane procedures for hours on end; and your curiosity deteriorates from constantly being told to forget about what interests you and just focus what is in the assignment or on the test. And then you lose your ability to decide anything for yourself and you just have to wait around for some "authority" to tell you what to do.
And I don't like that. Why? Because I've experienced it, and it feels like shit.
I feel sick when I think about those years I spent in school, in a little box, being yelled at and dominated. That alone is enough of a reason to be against school: That it's all about big grown-ups dominating the crap out of helpless little children.
People think that school is somehow supposed to help you. But all it can help you do is prepare for more of the same. You get good at something by having practice in it. So, since school is just being dominated by other people and following stupid instructions, that's what it prepares you for. It doesn't prepare you for making good decisions, because it doesn't prepare you for making decisions at all.
Even if I had just replaced all that time in school with time playing on the playground, I'd be better off. I'd be better off emotionally, at least. And when I was little, I had all kinds of experiments I wanted to try and devices I wanted to build. If I hadn't been forced to waste half my time in school, I could have learned so much more, really learned things from my own experience. But I would have learned stuff from books, too. The key is for it to be my own choice, and for it to be what interests me at the time.
I'm mad at all the hours I was kept locked up like veal, but I'm also mad that I could have been learning things during all that time, but instead I had to sit in a desk, mostly just sitting there.
I think I can sum up everything I learned in elementary school:
-the primary colors of light are red, blue, and green
-a regular polygon has equal sides and equal angles
-the bigger one is a lower magnification in a microscope
High school is harder to sum up, but it was just a bunch of random facts like
-the civil war was about states' rights
-if you type this, that, and the other into the graphing calculator, you get a circle
-a neutron can decompose into a proton and an electron
-etc
In other words, it was all a complete fucking waste of time. And energy. And sanity. And money. Supposedly the government spent millions upon millions of dollars for me to spend 11 years learning practically nothing.
And if you think I'm just "irresponsible" for not committing all that crap to memory: It would be stupid of me to continue to waste brain power on information I do not need to know. I was never the one who thought I needed to know it, so I'm not to blame for the fact that I don't. That might seem like strange thinking to you. You're probably quite used to the idea of parents deciding what kids should do and telling the kids to do it and blaming the kids if they don't do it. But that doesn't make any sense. The idea that the kid should do everything the parent says is not an idea the kids come pre-programmed with. So if you as a parent fail to program that into the kid, you, the parent, failed. You had a goal, and you failed to acheive it. And the schools (or the government, or the schoolboard or whoever) had a goal to program me with all that knowledge, and they failed. They failed to get the knowledge into me. They were trying to program me like a computer, and they failed. It's not irresponsible of me to have not memorized all that information, because I wasn't the one who wanted me to know it. If I had had a goal and failed to acheive it, then you could say I was irresponsible; but that's not the case.
So. School is bad because
1) It tries to standardize individuals;
2) It tries to violate people's right of ownership over themselves and their own bodies and minds;
3) It's a disgusting worse-than-a-waste of time that degrades people's physical and mental fitness.
I guess those are the 3 main reasons. I hope I haven't missed anything, and I hope everything is clearly explained.
The concept of school is that a few people (it doesn't matter who) decide what ALL the children should learn. I don't like this because there's no such thing as a basic curriculum that every person needs to know. Every individual's life is different.
School in practice:
And then they force the children to attend the meetings ("classes") and try to force the children to learn everything on the list. I don't like this because it violates the children's ownership of their own bodies and minds.
And then they find that they are failing at getting the children to learn things, so they start trying to eliminiate "distractions", and that's how you get to these day-prisons where you are punished if you move about without permission, talk without permission, look away from the assigment without permission; where you're only allowed to pee and poo and eat on a schedule, someone else's schedule; where your physical fitness deteriorates from being kept like veal for the better part of 7 hours a day, 180 days a year; and your creativity deteriorates from being required to fill out worksheets according to specific, pointless, mundane procedures for hours on end; and your curiosity deteriorates from constantly being told to forget about what interests you and just focus what is in the assignment or on the test. And then you lose your ability to decide anything for yourself and you just have to wait around for some "authority" to tell you what to do.
And I don't like that. Why? Because I've experienced it, and it feels like shit.
I feel sick when I think about those years I spent in school, in a little box, being yelled at and dominated. That alone is enough of a reason to be against school: That it's all about big grown-ups dominating the crap out of helpless little children.
People think that school is somehow supposed to help you. But all it can help you do is prepare for more of the same. You get good at something by having practice in it. So, since school is just being dominated by other people and following stupid instructions, that's what it prepares you for. It doesn't prepare you for making good decisions, because it doesn't prepare you for making decisions at all.
Even if I had just replaced all that time in school with time playing on the playground, I'd be better off. I'd be better off emotionally, at least. And when I was little, I had all kinds of experiments I wanted to try and devices I wanted to build. If I hadn't been forced to waste half my time in school, I could have learned so much more, really learned things from my own experience. But I would have learned stuff from books, too. The key is for it to be my own choice, and for it to be what interests me at the time.
I'm mad at all the hours I was kept locked up like veal, but I'm also mad that I could have been learning things during all that time, but instead I had to sit in a desk, mostly just sitting there.
I think I can sum up everything I learned in elementary school:
-the primary colors of light are red, blue, and green
-a regular polygon has equal sides and equal angles
-the bigger one is a lower magnification in a microscope
High school is harder to sum up, but it was just a bunch of random facts like
-the civil war was about states' rights
-if you type this, that, and the other into the graphing calculator, you get a circle
-a neutron can decompose into a proton and an electron
-etc
In other words, it was all a complete fucking waste of time. And energy. And sanity. And money. Supposedly the government spent millions upon millions of dollars for me to spend 11 years learning practically nothing.
And if you think I'm just "irresponsible" for not committing all that crap to memory: It would be stupid of me to continue to waste brain power on information I do not need to know. I was never the one who thought I needed to know it, so I'm not to blame for the fact that I don't. That might seem like strange thinking to you. You're probably quite used to the idea of parents deciding what kids should do and telling the kids to do it and blaming the kids if they don't do it. But that doesn't make any sense. The idea that the kid should do everything the parent says is not an idea the kids come pre-programmed with. So if you as a parent fail to program that into the kid, you, the parent, failed. You had a goal, and you failed to acheive it. And the schools (or the government, or the schoolboard or whoever) had a goal to program me with all that knowledge, and they failed. They failed to get the knowledge into me. They were trying to program me like a computer, and they failed. It's not irresponsible of me to have not memorized all that information, because I wasn't the one who wanted me to know it. If I had had a goal and failed to acheive it, then you could say I was irresponsible; but that's not the case.
So. School is bad because
1) It tries to standardize individuals;
2) It tries to violate people's right of ownership over themselves and their own bodies and minds;
3) It's a disgusting worse-than-a-waste of time that degrades people's physical and mental fitness.
I guess those are the 3 main reasons. I hope I haven't missed anything, and I hope everything is clearly explained.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Growing up
When I was little, I believed that when I grew up, I would be like my parents. I would have acquaintences rather than friends; I would like complex foods, rather than one-ingredient foods; I would walk around very calmly and systematically get all my work done instead of running around following whims.
When I was in 6th grade, there was a girl who wore make-up. At first, I thought her face just looked like that. But then someone mentioned it. And I thought, why would she do that? We're not grown-ups! Then, in 7th grade, suddenly all the girls were wearing make-up. And I wondered, "Is now when we're supposed to grow up? But I don't feel like growing up right now." I asked the girls about it, and they insisted that they just wanted to wear make-up and wear those fancy grown-up-looking clothes.
And that was when I realized that I might never want to do "grown-up" things. I realized there weren't really "grown-up things" and "kid things". There were just things.
I like the Wiggles. And I think that other people my age "don't like them" just because they think they're not supposed to like them. The songs are repetitive, the skits are simple, and we are taught that as grown-ups we are supposed to like complex things. But if you realize that that kind of "growing up" is stupid and fake, then you're free to like whatever you want.
I like the Wiggles, and I also like George Carlin and Real Time. I like H2O and degrassi, and I like the cute little clothes in the kids section, and I like brightly colored shoes and I'm not interested in "neutral colors". I like to skip and run and play with bubbles and hoola-hoops.
I put off writing this post because I couldn't figure out a good way to get my point across. I don't think this is very eloquent, but, eh, you get it, right?
When I was in 6th grade, there was a girl who wore make-up. At first, I thought her face just looked like that. But then someone mentioned it. And I thought, why would she do that? We're not grown-ups! Then, in 7th grade, suddenly all the girls were wearing make-up. And I wondered, "Is now when we're supposed to grow up? But I don't feel like growing up right now." I asked the girls about it, and they insisted that they just wanted to wear make-up and wear those fancy grown-up-looking clothes.
And that was when I realized that I might never want to do "grown-up" things. I realized there weren't really "grown-up things" and "kid things". There were just things.
I like the Wiggles. And I think that other people my age "don't like them" just because they think they're not supposed to like them. The songs are repetitive, the skits are simple, and we are taught that as grown-ups we are supposed to like complex things. But if you realize that that kind of "growing up" is stupid and fake, then you're free to like whatever you want.
I like the Wiggles, and I also like George Carlin and Real Time. I like H2O and degrassi, and I like the cute little clothes in the kids section, and I like brightly colored shoes and I'm not interested in "neutral colors". I like to skip and run and play with bubbles and hoola-hoops.
I put off writing this post because I couldn't figure out a good way to get my point across. I don't think this is very eloquent, but, eh, you get it, right?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Tracts
My best friend from college and her husband who was also one of my best friends from college sent me an xmas card. It came with a newsletter and a tract.
The weird thing about every (christian) tract I've ever seen is that they assume you already believe in God.
Every tract ever:
-Hey, you know that God guy? And that Heaven place?
-Well, did you know that if you want to go to Heaven and be with God, you have to accept Jesus? The bible says so!
-So, say this prayer.
So, here's the tract they sent me. I haven't actually read it yet.
-The cover says, "God's Simple Plan of Salvation"
The problem with this is that I don't believe in God and I don't believe I need any salvation. A good tract should convince me of both of these, and convince me that the "plan" will work.
-My Friend: I am asking you the most important question of life. Your joy or your sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer.
Maybe "sorrow" is just a really big understatement. Or maybe the people who wrote this tract don't believe that hell is literally full of fire.
-The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die?
I think, "Are you saved?" and, "Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die?" can be different questions, depending on who you ask. I'm sure there are religious groups that don't believe in this "being saved" thing but do believe in Heaven, and their adherents probably believe they will go to heaven when they die. Aren't catholics like that? I mean, they have that stuff about confession, but they don't have anything about being saved.
-God says in order to go to Heaven, you must be born again. In John 3:7, Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again."
-In the Bible God gives us the plan of how to be born again which means to be saved. His plan is simple! You can be saved today. How?
I kind of wonder how they know that "to be born again" means "to be saved". But since they're quoting the bible and they haven't even tried to convince me that the bible is a trust-worthy source of information, it's a moot point.
-First, my friend, you must realize you are a sinner. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
Proof? What is "sin"? How do you know I've done it? I'm not going to take the bible's word for it.
-Because you are a sinner, you are condemned to death. "For the wages [payment] of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). This includes eternal separation from God in Hell. "... it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).
I think that at this point they think they have convinced me that I am in dire need of this "saving". But they haven't. Not only are they basing this on an unreliable source, but it also all sounds ridiculous. They haven't really explained what a sinner is. I suppose they're assuming I already know. It means I've broken any commandment in the bible, and, according to some xtians, even if I haven't, I'm still a sinner because of Adam. But then, if they are assuming I am already familiar with the bible, then why are they telling me ...
OK, I just figured it out. They are assuming that I'm one of those wishy-washy I-believe-in-God I-went-to-bible-school once xtians who hasn't really seriously thought about any of this, and they are seriously concerned that I don't believe in Jesus hard enough.
OK, I'm perusing the tract now, and it basically says this:
1. You're a sinner.
2. You're going to go to hell.
3. God wants to save you from hell.
4. He sent Jesus to serve your sentence for you.
5. You have to say you're sorry and accept the gift.
This thing about having to accept it has always bothered me. It's so weirdly illogical. God was all like, "I am so mad at you!! I will kill you!!! No, instead I will kill this other guy. But now you have to say you're sorry and say you accept this guy's punishment, or else I'll just go ahead and kill you too." I don't know, I mean, if someone owed me $100 and their friend gave me $100, I would be all satisfied; I wouldn't go after the original person for any reason.
The christian answer I've gotten to this before is that God is perfectly just, so he can't just let it go that So-and-So was the one who really owed the $100. God can't let that person just get away with it.
But then he does let that person get away with, with just saying, "Yeah, I'm sorry, and I accept my friend's gift."
The weird thing about every (christian) tract I've ever seen is that they assume you already believe in God.
Every tract ever:
-Hey, you know that God guy? And that Heaven place?
-Well, did you know that if you want to go to Heaven and be with God, you have to accept Jesus? The bible says so!
-So, say this prayer.
So, here's the tract they sent me. I haven't actually read it yet.
-The cover says, "God's Simple Plan of Salvation"
The problem with this is that I don't believe in God and I don't believe I need any salvation. A good tract should convince me of both of these, and convince me that the "plan" will work.
-My Friend: I am asking you the most important question of life. Your joy or your sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer.
Maybe "sorrow" is just a really big understatement. Or maybe the people who wrote this tract don't believe that hell is literally full of fire.
-The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die?
I think, "Are you saved?" and, "Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die?" can be different questions, depending on who you ask. I'm sure there are religious groups that don't believe in this "being saved" thing but do believe in Heaven, and their adherents probably believe they will go to heaven when they die. Aren't catholics like that? I mean, they have that stuff about confession, but they don't have anything about being saved.
-God says in order to go to Heaven, you must be born again. In John 3:7, Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again."
-In the Bible God gives us the plan of how to be born again which means to be saved. His plan is simple! You can be saved today. How?
I kind of wonder how they know that "to be born again" means "to be saved". But since they're quoting the bible and they haven't even tried to convince me that the bible is a trust-worthy source of information, it's a moot point.
-First, my friend, you must realize you are a sinner. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
Proof? What is "sin"? How do you know I've done it? I'm not going to take the bible's word for it.
-Because you are a sinner, you are condemned to death. "For the wages [payment] of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). This includes eternal separation from God in Hell. "... it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).
I think that at this point they think they have convinced me that I am in dire need of this "saving". But they haven't. Not only are they basing this on an unreliable source, but it also all sounds ridiculous. They haven't really explained what a sinner is. I suppose they're assuming I already know. It means I've broken any commandment in the bible, and, according to some xtians, even if I haven't, I'm still a sinner because of Adam. But then, if they are assuming I am already familiar with the bible, then why are they telling me ...
OK, I just figured it out. They are assuming that I'm one of those wishy-washy I-believe-in-God I-went-to-bible-school once xtians who hasn't really seriously thought about any of this, and they are seriously concerned that I don't believe in Jesus hard enough.
OK, I'm perusing the tract now, and it basically says this:
1. You're a sinner.
2. You're going to go to hell.
3. God wants to save you from hell.
4. He sent Jesus to serve your sentence for you.
5. You have to say you're sorry and accept the gift.
This thing about having to accept it has always bothered me. It's so weirdly illogical. God was all like, "I am so mad at you!! I will kill you!!! No, instead I will kill this other guy. But now you have to say you're sorry and say you accept this guy's punishment, or else I'll just go ahead and kill you too." I don't know, I mean, if someone owed me $100 and their friend gave me $100, I would be all satisfied; I wouldn't go after the original person for any reason.
The christian answer I've gotten to this before is that God is perfectly just, so he can't just let it go that So-and-So was the one who really owed the $100. God can't let that person just get away with it.
But then he does let that person get away with, with just saying, "Yeah, I'm sorry, and I accept my friend's gift."
Irregular hours
When I worked at Wendy's, I worked the same hours every week. I had the same two days off every week. I worked 11-5 five days a week.
When I worked at Subway, the hours were pretty consistent, too. I worked 5-10 mostly, and occasionally 9-2 or 11-2. The days off varied.
I briefly tried working at Burger King, where the hours were all crazy and 90% of the time when I came in, they told me, "Just kidding! Go home."
So now I have a job at Tom Thumb and I've been told that the hours will be different every week, and I could be working any time from 6 am to 1 am, but it's only part time, so, while I'll supposedly probably get about 35 hours a week, it's not guarranteed that I'll get that much and I can't even go look for another part-time job because I never know when I'll be available.
I can't think of any reasonable explanation for this behaviour. Why wouldn't they just let people work regular schedules? It'd be better for everyone! I'd rather get a regularly-scheduled 20 hours a week so that I could find another regularly scheduled job somewhere else.
My mom has suggested a few rationales for this. Maybe it's because they don't want to stick the same people with the weekends every week. Well, if so, sign me up for the weekends. I don't do anything ever. Maybe it's because they don't want you to be able to get another job to supplement your pathetic pay. If that's it, they're still irrationally evil. Why wouldn't they want you to make more money? Or maybe it's because they want you to feel totally powerless over your own life so that you'll do whatever they want all the time for microscopic amounts of money. I think it's that one.
I used to always hear about poor people on welfare having 3 part-time jobs. What happened to that? I'd love to be one of those people.
I'm available for math and spanish tutoring :D
When I worked at Subway, the hours were pretty consistent, too. I worked 5-10 mostly, and occasionally 9-2 or 11-2. The days off varied.
I briefly tried working at Burger King, where the hours were all crazy and 90% of the time when I came in, they told me, "Just kidding! Go home."
So now I have a job at Tom Thumb and I've been told that the hours will be different every week, and I could be working any time from 6 am to 1 am, but it's only part time, so, while I'll supposedly probably get about 35 hours a week, it's not guarranteed that I'll get that much and I can't even go look for another part-time job because I never know when I'll be available.
I can't think of any reasonable explanation for this behaviour. Why wouldn't they just let people work regular schedules? It'd be better for everyone! I'd rather get a regularly-scheduled 20 hours a week so that I could find another regularly scheduled job somewhere else.
My mom has suggested a few rationales for this. Maybe it's because they don't want to stick the same people with the weekends every week. Well, if so, sign me up for the weekends. I don't do anything ever. Maybe it's because they don't want you to be able to get another job to supplement your pathetic pay. If that's it, they're still irrationally evil. Why wouldn't they want you to make more money? Or maybe it's because they want you to feel totally powerless over your own life so that you'll do whatever they want all the time for microscopic amounts of money. I think it's that one.
I used to always hear about poor people on welfare having 3 part-time jobs. What happened to that? I'd love to be one of those people.
I'm available for math and spanish tutoring :D
Taking husband's name
I feel sick like I'm going to die or something whenever I think about this. A lot of people think that feminism is totally unnecessary now because it's over and women have equality, the end. But if that's true then why do so many women keep changing their last names when they get married!? Checkmate!
I remember when I was in 7th grade, a classful of girls insisted that they would not change their last names when they got married. Hm, I should try to look those people up on facebook or something. That could be problematic though, because I was unable to obtain a yearbook due to stupidity (someone else's, not my own) and I might not be able to remember people's names. But I don't have any reason to think that that class wouldn't have been representative of, say, texan girls in general. It was a relatively conservative town, so if even those girls didn't want to change their names.... But every (hyperbole) woman my age (who I am currently in some kind of contact with) is now getting married, changing her name, and crapping out babies. What's up with this!?
OK, I have to admit that my 7th grade class could have just been unusual. But even so. That so many young women, women in their early twenties, are still taking their hubands' last names is, I think, sympomatic of widespread sexism.
My best friend from college change her last name when she got married. I knew her by one name for 5 years. Names are like a capsule for someone's identity. So who is she now? It confuses me on some subconscious emotional level, and then my brain informs me that I should feel a combination of >:( and whatever the emoticon for barfing up bile is.
My sister also changed her last name when she got married. She's my half-sister, and we have the same dad, so we didn't really live together that much, because she mostly lived with her mom. So I had a big attachment to the fact that we shared a last name. It was like, "YES, world, she really is my sister. We have the same last name; that proves it." But now her name is completely different from mine, and she lives in a different town, and we look nothing alike and it makes me feel like this :.( and also like throwing up.
I remember when I was in 7th grade, a classful of girls insisted that they would not change their last names when they got married. Hm, I should try to look those people up on facebook or something. That could be problematic though, because I was unable to obtain a yearbook due to stupidity (someone else's, not my own) and I might not be able to remember people's names. But I don't have any reason to think that that class wouldn't have been representative of, say, texan girls in general. It was a relatively conservative town, so if even those girls didn't want to change their names.... But every (hyperbole) woman my age (who I am currently in some kind of contact with) is now getting married, changing her name, and crapping out babies. What's up with this!?
OK, I have to admit that my 7th grade class could have just been unusual. But even so. That so many young women, women in their early twenties, are still taking their hubands' last names is, I think, sympomatic of widespread sexism.
My best friend from college change her last name when she got married. I knew her by one name for 5 years. Names are like a capsule for someone's identity. So who is she now? It confuses me on some subconscious emotional level, and then my brain informs me that I should feel a combination of >:( and whatever the emoticon for barfing up bile is.
My sister also changed her last name when she got married. She's my half-sister, and we have the same dad, so we didn't really live together that much, because she mostly lived with her mom. So I had a big attachment to the fact that we shared a last name. It was like, "YES, world, she really is my sister. We have the same last name; that proves it." But now her name is completely different from mine, and she lives in a different town, and we look nothing alike and it makes me feel like this :.( and also like throwing up.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
This is a post.
I'm making a post. I have no idea what I'm going to do with this very important buhlog. I'll try to make it something important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)